Actually, when you kick a ball you're still technically in possession while the ball is in the air (ever wonder why if you form a maul immediately after catching the ball on the full, you get the ball back when the maul fails?). So a kick is not a loss of possession, merely a loss of control.

Of course, this is a situation where it's not a kick...so the loss of possession is actually when he releases the ball behind him.

The law about kicks doesn't prevent a player from propelling the ball forward by other means (e.g.: off the body, the upper leg, the face); it just defines what may be considered a kick for the purposes of scoring points or restarting the game.

Except under the laws, continuing to run your support line is not obstruction. Haylett-Petty is not required to move out of the way of Savea.

The law on obstruction that deals with blocking the tackler [10.1 (c)] states that "A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier."

The argument is that Haylett-Petty deliberately got in Savea's way, but if you look at the video, he starts running a support line towards the outside. As he continues on his line, he happens to bump Savea (granted, he does shove a little...). Both players are entitled to continue running their lines (you wouldn't expect Savea to move to allow a support player to get into a better position).

Obstruction requires the obstructer to change his line to deliberately get in the way. Because Hale-Petty was already running a line that would take him to the outside, he is entitled to continue to run that line. He does not have to get out of Savea's way.

Actually, I think if he hadn't dipped his head he would have landed on it. It really looked like the hooker realized he was going over, and tucked to try to avoid landing on his head - just like you're taught to do when somersaulting.

Poor technique and bad reaction from Earls, Glasgow hooker did what he had to do to protect himself.

The Rugby League emphasis on kicking (because of the limited number of tackles available per possession) means that there are often kicks at the end of a set of six. Couple that with the ridiculous raw athleticism required to make it in the NRL, and you get regular awesome highlights. On the flip side, I personally find it a bit one-dimensionally as far as the tactics are concerned - a typical set of six is: bash, bash, bash, pass, pass/kick, kick (if still in possession).

Also, as a union player if you want to really develop good running lines, have a go at league (especially in Aus) - you'll either come away with excellent off-the-ball running lines, or broken into a million pieces (if you don't learn).

As DanKnapp mentions though, the NRL highlight reel is fantastic regardless of which code you prefer.

Nope! Law 22.11 (a) specifies that "when the ball touches the touch-in-goal line or the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead." No mention of the plane of the line.

It's similar to touch - the ball being in or out is determined by what it touches when it lands. If it touches the line or anything beyond the line, it's dead. Until it touches something on the line or beyond the line (including players with a foot on or over the line), it's still in play.

5 teams makes sense to start - the player pool available to the league right now isn't as deep as in the rugby strongholds of the world. If you had 10 team right off the bat, you run the risk of having players on the field that aren't up to the level needed to catch and hold the public's interest. By phasing teams in slowly, you can develop that talent pool gradually - all while minimizing the financial requirements of the league until it can prove the business model works.

Having most teams in the west isn't too much of a problem for now - we here in North America have been looking forward to our own pro league for so long that many of us are adopting teams that have nothing to do with where we live. I'm in Montreal, but I support the San Diego team. Here's hoping that eventually there's a pro team somewhere within a few hours of my city! Until that time, up San Diego!

Wrong. It is physically possible, and it happened - it's pretty clear from the overhead cam, if not before.

1 - Ball is thrown at an angle backwards towards the Welsh goal line
2 - Ball encounters large English hand between point of origin and the intended target
3 - Force from original pass causes ball to rebound in a direction roughly opposite the original direction of travel

If you want, I can go into how the angle of the hand and the angular velocity of the ball can cause the rebound to go backwards, but I figured the less technical explanation above would be ample rebuttal to your point!